Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Stroud

Court of Appeals of Oregon

August 15, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GENA MARIE STROUD, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted December 21, 2017

          Lane County Circuit Court 15CR52306; Maurice K. Merten, Judge.

          Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers, Judge.

         Case Summary: Defendant seeks reversal of a judgment fending that she violated a special condition of her probation by failing "to participate in an evaluation with Quality Research Associates as directed and/or follow the recommendation of the evaluator." Defendant contends that she complied with the special condition because she reported to the evaluation. In contrast, the state argues that, to comply with the special condition, defendant was required to complete the evaluation. Held: The trial court did not err in ruling that defendant violated the special condition of her probation.

         Affirmed.

         [293 Or. 315] ORTEGA, P. J.

         Defendant seeks reversal of a judgment finding that she violated a special condition of her probation by failing "to participate in an evaluation with Quality Research Associates as directed and/or follow the recommendation of the evaluator." Defendant contends that she complied with the special condition because she reported to the evaluation. In contrast, the state argues that, to comply with the special condition, defendant was required to complete the evaluation. We conclude that the trial court did not err in ruling that defendant violated the special condition of her probation and, accordingly, we affirm.

         In the underlying criminal case, on December 24, 2015, defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of violating a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750(2)(a), and the trial court sentenced her to 60 months of probation and 45 days in jail as a condition of her probation. The court imposed a special probation condition that defendant

"[r]eport in person no later than 2:00 p.m. by 1/7/16 to Quality Research Associates (QRA) to be evaluated [.] Defendant shall comply, at [her] expense, with all evaluations, treatment and education programs designated by QRA or by any other agency to which defendant is referred by QRA or by the Court."

         Defendant reported to QRA on April 19, more than three months after the time specified in condition, and began an evaluation. The evaluator stated that during the evaluation, defendant "was becoming more and more erratic and hostile," and that even after the evaluator made several attempts to deescalate the situation, defendant would not calm down. Unable to complete the evaluation, the evaluator ended the interview because of defendant's "behavior and lack of cooperation [during] the interview."

         The evaluator filed a notice of noncompliance with the court, and the state filed an order to show cause requiring defendant to explain why her probation should not be revoked based on her failure to comply with the special condition.[1] Defendant testified that the first evaluation was [293 Or. 316] "extremely upsetting" and that she was dealing with personal and family issues at that time. The court found that the allegations in the state's motion were proven, ordered the continuation of defendant's probation, and also ordered that defendant serve 30 days in jail as an additional probation condition. Defendant served the 30 days.

         On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding that she violated the special probation condition that she be evaluated by QRA. She contends that she was only required to "report for an evaluation" and comply with any programs designated by the evaluator, and because she reported, there was no violation. She further argues that, regardless of the first evaluation, she still satisfied the special condition of probation by July 14 because she returned to QRA so that the evaluator could complete the evaluation and nothing in the record indicates that the evaluation was not completed successfully. The state first responds that this appeal should be dismissed as moot. Alternatively, the state argues that the trial court correctly ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.